You built your PC 2 years ago. Check your PC that was from 2005 when the Xbox 360 launched and see if it can run let say...Skyrim or The Witcher 2.

That's because the games on the PC continue looking better in an iterative process, the consoles don't. It's not the same scenario. Of course a PC from 2005 wouldn't (at least not beyond low settings and 30fps) run those, but that's also because those games look and play much, much better on the PC than the consoles. Not to mention graphics card have come a long, long way since 2005.

GTX 780 doesn't make the graphics look any better than a GTX 460 at the same settings.
GTX 780 will have higher frame rate.

The impression from peoples posts I get from this thread so far is the higher the specs of the computer the better the game will look.

Specs matter in the context that comparing a console to "medium settings" of a $100 video card is hugely different than "medium settings" of a $1000 video card.

Running a crappy video card can still yield 60fps by lowering the level on individual video settings. My current video card is way dated, I have a GTS 250! It's friggin old...and my cpu is equally dated. I can run one game on it max settings and get 60fps online....then the next I'll run on low settings and if more then 4 people enter my screen at once I drop to below 10 frames.

Specs matter, but not in this context. It's a comparison of the video settings themselves, not benchmarks. The specs of the PC aren't necessary here -- they would add nothing to the point of the article.

Specs matter, but not in this context. It's a comparison of the video settings themselves, not benchmarks. The specs of the PC aren't necessary here -- they would add nothing to the point of the article.

Gah, yes you're right. My bad, I was stuck in the mindset of benchmarks. I withdraw my remarks. Sorry Keefy

edit:
Actually no, regardless of how you spin it, its still a test of benchmarks. The only reason to lower video settings for a game is if running it too high lowers the framerate. With the best alternative reasoning I can think of being that they made the ps3 and ps4 versions identical in everyway, but had to leave the game at medium settings so the ps3 would have a prayer of running it.

So either the ps3 is being catered to and the ps4 is simply reaping better framerates as a result. Or the ps4 can't handle high+ settings without loss of framerate. Considering the non-xplatform games coming to the ps4 look better than the xplatform games, I'm going to have to assume that the ps4 version of bf4 is suffering from its predecessors aged hardware.

I duno, maybe someone needs to jump in on my thinking here and find whatever loophole I left out...

The PS4 could run at LOW PC settings, and I wouldn't care. I don't want to game on PC, so no matter what their findings are, I will game on the PS4. Like every gen before it, PC's have and always will be ahead of the console. I really don't care, because I know that I will turn on my TV, turn on my PS4 and enjoy the $#@!ing games.

Specs matter in the context that comparing a console to "medium settings" of a $100 video card is hugely different than "medium settings" of a $1000 video card.

You don't know anything about PCs, do you?

You do not change settings of your hardware, you change the settings of the game. High quality settings in any game will look exactly the same no matter what hardware you have provided that hardware has the same hardware functions.

So it doesn't matter if you have a $1,000 DX11 GPU or a $100 DX11 GPU, as long as it's a DX11 GPU it will produce identical looking graphics. The difference will be performance, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. We are not comparing frame rates, we are comparing graphics quality.

The PS4 could run at LOW PC settings, and I wouldn't care. I don't want to game on PC,

Why? What's the difference?

Let's say I put you down at my home theater. I put in Bioshock Infinite and hand you an Xbox 360 controller. Aside from the vastly improved performance, higher frame rates, and native 1080p resolution, how would you know you were playing on a PC rather than my PS3 or Xbox 360?

Same game, same HDTV, same receiver, same gamepad controller, what's the difference?

The only differences that I see is that the PC is far more versatile when not playing games, and that extra functionality comes with a higher price. Other than that, no difference. Same game, same display, same sound, same controller.

You do not change settings of your hardware, you change the settings of the game. High quality settings in any game will look exactly the same no matter what hardware you have provided that hardware has the same hardware functions.

So it doesn't matter if you have a $1,000 DX11 GPU or a $100 DX11 GPU, as long as it's a DX11 GPU it will produce identical looking graphics. The difference will be performance, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. We are not comparing frame rates, we are comparing graphics quality.

yes I do actually. I know full well the settings are in game. But noone plays a game at medium settings because they want to, they do so because they have to due to hardware limitations. You can tell me that a high end card and a lesser card will provide the same visuals on screen at medium settings all you want. But nobody wants to play a game at medium settings, they want to play it at high. They set the game to medium because if they don't the hardware wont keep up and the game will be unplayable.

Interesting so all I need to do is buy a $1000 PC or a $400 console to enjoy next gen graphics. Considering my current PC won't run Battlefield 3.

I enjoy gaming on a console and leaving my laptop open beside me to do two things at once. That is just my preference. I suppose I could go out and buy 2 monitors for my $1000 PC and make it work that way, but then i lose the comforts of my living room too.

Let's say I put you down at my home theater. I put in Bioshock Infinite and hand you an Xbox 360 controller. Aside from the vastly improved performance, higher frame rates, and native 1080p resolution, how would you know you were playing on a PC rather than my PS3 or Xbox 360?

Same game, same HDTV, same receiver, same gamepad controller, what's the difference?

The only differences that I see is that the PC is far more versatile when not playing games, and that extra functionality comes with a higher price. Other than that, no difference. Same game, same display, same sound, same controller.

I am not interested in getting into another debate about console vs. PC. We have threads here for that already.

Sorry man, im happy with a console, i use my £500 lenovo thinkpad for Football Manager, downloading and browsing

Ha, as long as the man got football manager!

Anyway, as I said earlier. If you we're going to buy BF4 on the PS4 anyway this news shouldn't put you off.This will be the best console BF experience to date so it's going to be amazing to whoever plays it. It's common knowledge that the PC will always have the best version but it's common sense when you think a lot of gaming PC's (not johnny casual, proper PC Gamers) will have a GPU alone that is worth more than the PS4.

BF4 is multi platform so it not taking full advantage of the console hardware?

The only reason why PS4 exclusive will look better is because their game is not on the same scale as a Battlefield games. Yes, I know some of u will post the Killzone gif and David "Speilberg" Cage Sorcerer video as proof, but I'm sorry those game(actually only one of them is a game LOL) are not on the same level as a Battlefield games.

Yes of course everyone wants to play a game at high settings. But that isn't always the case. In a perfect world that would be fine but since we're not in a perfect world.... All of my PC gamer friends are usually gaming at medium to high settings depending on the game. It's quite normal to see people gaming on medium settings in BF3. The majority isn't gaming on high to ultra high settings. I just don't see how that could be if the majority were gaming on high all the time or even most of the time. Same goes for resolutions. 1080p is usually the max but I will even drop it down to 720p and on a 24" monitor that is crystal clear with max settings with a really nice performance boost.

I can't stress this fact enough that the consoles really don't need to compete with PC on high settings or high end GPU's. There is no reason for that type of competition.

As for BF4, I'm sure it's going to look better than BF3, much better, much more clear, and hopefully less glitches.

Didn't say it wasn't normal. Just saying if given the ability to play high settings, a person wouldn't willingly go down to less than high 'just because they could'. They do so because not doing that will impact their gaming experience.

I guess maybe if motion blur or too many particles on screen made ya feel sick that would be another reason. But for the team making BF4 to say "yea it works fine on high, and we get good frames...but F it, lets knock it back down to medium just because we can"...well thats silly. So either its equiv to a medium setting pc because the ps4 can handle higher, or its that way because they are just porting direct from ps3...which is more likely since some of the exclusives are already looking better.

Well, whenever ea and/or dice are involved with battlefield games. I usually tend to sit back and wait it out because those companies really struggle to give out any type of solid information especially on Battlefield games. I use to frequent the DICE forums back in the day and I just stopped doing that because while they seem to listen to gamers, they've been willingly able to slackoff on ports or anything else. I think the PS4 version is more of a port from the PC version to be honest. The PS3 version is just by itself with 24 players, really scaled down. I just don't expect anything good on either the 360 or PS3 versions of the game.

The guy that played the PS4 version who's name is Scott Lowe. His article was pretty whiny on the fact that he didn't get to play the 32 vs 32 modes but instead only was privledged enough to play 8 vs 8. You should read his article because that is how this all got started. Almost like he was butthurt that he didn't get to play the big mode. Which after reading his article was clear that he was pissed about not playing the bigger modes.

That's funny, because I remember when Quakecon had to switch to fixed frame rates because gamers were doing precisely that in order to boost their frame rates about 120fps.

lol, I knew it. I knew the moment I hit that post button, that someone would hit me with the competitive tourny scene examples. Do you know why I knew? Because there is never winning an argument with PC guys in these discussions.

When console didn't do 60fps.....well pc does 60 fps
Now that console can do 60 fps....well pc does higher
Console rolls out competitive specs....well my 10 times more expensive pc is better
Console runs on medium settings.....my pc can run on high because its better
Try to prove its better to run on high now that console can....well we actually run our pc on lower settings to get an edge in tournaments.

edit:
Actually no, regardless of how you spin it, its still a test of benchmarks.

It's not though. What you're referring to is a different subject from what the article is designed to discuss. I'm not saying what you've said is necessarily wrong, only that the article is geared towards a specific topic, which is only what visual settings the PS4 will be comparable to. Again, this isn't a benchmark. If it were and no specs had been posted, then of course it would have been a lapse of judgement on the article's part.

So I repeat, what specs did you want posted? Where is this computer that everyone is looking for?

lol, I knew it. I knew the moment I hit that post button, that someone would hit me with the competitive tourny scene examples. Do you know why I knew? Because there is never winning an argument with PC guys in these discussions.

When console didn't do 60fps.....well pc does 60 fps
Now that console can do 60 fps....well pc does higher
Console rolls out competitive specs....well my 10 times more expensive pc is better
Console runs on medium settings.....my pc can run on high because its better
Try to prove its better to run on high now that console can....well we actually run our pc on lower settings to get an edge in tournaments.

Lol, I'm out. You guys win lol. This is ridiculous

125FPS is the optimum amount in Quake3 and Quake live hell even COD 4 (all CODs probably but after 4 the max FPS is hardcoded 90 so I hear) its do do with packets sent to the server. The engine will only send the same amount of packets as frames rendered on screen. So if you have 30FPS it will only send 30 packets to the server thus creating a less accurate picture of your movements and where your shots land.
So players of Quake and COD 4 tended to lower settings to achieve 125FPS with a setting of cl_maxpackets 125 to get the best hitreg possible.

Even today with a modern GPU They still tend to play with very crappy looking washed out looking images because that is how they have always played. r_picmip

Of course Battlefield 4 will only be medium settings on PS4. Frostbite 3 has more tech than even a next gen console can swallow, and so it is obvious that PC will be the only one to get all the goodies. But you need to remember that DICE is also targeting 60fps for next gen consoles. No matter how you spin it, there is still no other PS4 game that can push the visuals and sheer level scale like Battlefield 4 is at 60fps for single player or multiplayer.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.